Law Society of Ontario CPD’s Post

#Criminalbreachoftrust by misusing the tool of criminal law: SC: The criminal prosecution instituted against the accused appellants in pursuance of the totally frivolous FIR tantamounts to sheer abuse of the process of law. In view of the clear bar contained in Section 4 of the Benami Act, the complainant could not have sued the accused appellants for the same set of facts and allegations which are made the foundation of the criminal proceedings. Since, if such allegations do not constitute an actionable civil wrong, in such circumstances, allowing the prosecution of the accused appellants for the very same set of facts, would tantamount to abuse of the process of law. False complaint is not maintainable: It cannot be doubted that a dispute which is purely civil in nature has been given a colour of criminal prosecution alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust by misusing the tool of criminal law. We have to be conscious of the fact that the complainant has tried to misuse the tool of criminal law by filing the patently frivolous FIR dated 6th March, 2011, wherein the allegation is levelled regarding the so-called incident of criminal intimidation dated 28th July, 2010. The said allegation otherwise is also belied for the reason that in the FIR, the complainant states that he filed a complaint dated 29th July, 2010 in Kovilpatti West Police Station, but the RTI reply from the said police station clearly states that no such complaint was ever received.

Post 20 Article 20 Protection in respect of conviction for offences : (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Summary : Article 20 provides protection to individuals against arbitrary and retrospective criminal laws and ensures fair legal procedures. Key Points: 1) Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws: No person can be convicted for an act that was not a crime when it was committed. Example: If a law is passed in 2023 making an act illegal, a person who did that act in 2022 cannot be convicted under the new law. 2) Double Jeopardy: No person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. Example: If someone is acquitted of theft charges, they cannot be tried again for the same theft. 3) Self-Incrimination: No person accused of an offense can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. Example: A person cannot be forced to confess or provide evidence that incriminates them. Ex Post Facto Law: A person cannot be jailed for using a substance that was legal at the time of use but banned later. Double Jeopardy: An individual acquitted of a crime cannot face another trial for the same incident. Self-Incrimination: During police interrogation, a suspect has the right to remain silent and not provide self-incriminating statements. Article 20 ensures protection against retrospective laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination, promoting fairness and justice in the legal system. #LegalProtection #Article20 #IndianConstitution #RightToFairTrial #DoubleJeopardy #SelfIncrimination #ExPostFactoLaw #LegalRights #CriminalJustice #LegalAwareness #KnowYourRights #ConstitutionalLaw #FairTrial #LegalEducation #JusticeSystem

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code & F.I.R Nothing can impair the proceedings in a criminal trial as it is in the interests of the society to find out the truth of the matter, and ultimately reach the ends of justice by determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The complainant may be instrumental in setting a criminal proceeding into motion, but he/she cannot be permitted to go beyond “a mere assistive role”, as that does not only prejudice a fair trial but also undermine the primacy accorded to a Public Prosecutor by the Code and the criminal justice system of our country. Criminal proceedings are often triggered on the basis of information received from the public (mostly the victim or a near kin), in general referred to as the complainant. Though he/she may be the directly impacted party, one cannot lose sight of the fact that a crime is a wrong against society and the public at large. The information as provided by the complainant is only to “aid” the police/investigating agency in order for them to take action by registering an F. I. R under the prevalent law. However, having been directly aggrieved and inevitably high on emotions, the complainant often tends to forget the significance of the State in a criminal trial and seeks to take charge from the prosecutor, the representative of the public at large. This article is an attempt to highlight how it is the State that runs the show in a criminal trial; and the complainant, though the “generator” or the “trigger” for a criminal proceeding, is soon reduced to the status of an “ally” of the prosecution. CONTINUED....IN COMMENTS COLUMN BELOW

Whether you are a Crown or defence counsel, this program is the fast track to all the recent developments in criminal law. Find out when after-the-fact conduct is relevant evidence, what the latest cases on reasonable expectation of privacy tell us, and more. #LSOCPD

📜 ℙ𝔾ℙ𝕊 𝕃𝕖𝕘𝕒𝕝𝔹𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕗: Three Ways to Protect Yourself from the Nightmare Neighbour in Your Complex...🏘 We discuss three options that may be open to victims in the context of a recent High Court fight between two neighbours in a complex that included allegations of verbal and physical abuse, threats, and harassment. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dwHzR7_a #legal #attorney #attorneys #law #conveyancing #propertylaw #commerciallaw #trustadministration #legalexperience #corporateservices #estateplanning #trustadministraton #tax #litigationattorney #Willdrafting #trustsandwills #TrustsAndEstates #trustsandestates

When it comes to insight and guidance on the fundamentals of criminal law practice, this is the program for you. Our presenters take you through key elements of the client relationship and describe the important stages leading up to the trial process. #LSOCPD

Criminal Law Quiz: Q: You have been found guilty. The prosecutor is seeking the death penalty. Who decides whether you will receive death? A) Judge; B) Jury; C) Both; D) You can choose the judge or the jury. A: "D".

Do you want to know more about permitted work for paralegals in Criminal Law and how you can begin in this field? Look no further! Our presenters dive into key questions for these legal services. #LSOCPD

The institution of a criminal case refers to the formal initiation of legal proceedings against an individual or entity accused of committing a crime. This process typically involves several steps: 1. **Investigation**: Law enforcement gathers evidence and determines whether there is enough to proceed with charges. 2. **Filing of Charges**: If sufficient evidence is found, prosecutors file charges, often through a complaint or indictment. 3. **Arraignment**: The accused is formally presented with the charges and enters a plea (guilty, not guilty, etc.). 4. **Pre-Trial Proceedings**: This may include hearings, motions, and negotiations for plea deals. 5. **Trial**: If the case goes to trial, evidence is presented, and a verdict is reached. 6. **Sentencing**: If found guilty, the individual is sentenced according to the law. Each jurisdiction may have variations in this process. . . . . . . #legal #criminal #case #juridiction

SRA: I’m confused 🫤 For any regulator to earn the respect of those they regulate, they must be consistent and proportionate Let’s look at 2 recent / ongoing stories: 1 a solicitor recorded half an hour of non-chargeable supervision time to a file they were given to audit. They intended to do the work at some point in the future. Therefore, they were wrong to record the time as the work had not yet been done Result = strike-off 2 a solicitor drunkenly drove into another car, fled and did not report himself to the police until some days later Result = small fine 3 Post Office Ltd Horizon scandal The lawyers have all clearly been dishonest at best and corrupt / criminal at worst; in many cases they have admitted this Remember that the SRA usually act with only a feint whiff of wrongdoing - guilty until proven innocent Result here = nothing Can anyone explain this to me? #law #lawyer #lawfirm #solicitor #postoffice #regulation #corruption Nick Gould Brian Rogers FCMI Stephen Larcombe